SILVA: Placing blame in the wrong places

You may have noticed that the Sacramento Kings are supposed to be getting a new stadium — on the public dime. The Golden State Warriors are set to move across the Bay to San Francisco while the San Francisco 49ers are bolting for Santa Clara — the same place the Oakland A's want to move to.

It's not just the Bay Area — the St. Louis Rams want a new stadium because of a knucklehead clause in the agreement that says the Rams can bolt if the stadium they play in isn't a top 10 stadium.

The Rams have won an arbitration case that sets in motion a possible move if a new stadium isn't built or the Edward Jones Dome isn't upgraded — with a price tag up $700 million.

Mind you, the Missouri taxpayer is already doling out $30 million a year in bond payments for the original dome, and here come the Rams saying — meet the contract.

Now, I am a Ram fan — starting as a Los Angeles Ram fan — so I have to get that on the record. But I can't stand these taxpayer-funded and -built stadiums because, 1) it's a misuse of taxpayer money, and 2) the teams that get them are not part of the community in the way other businesses are.

Look at the San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers. They own the buildings they play in so they aren't about to move to Oklahoma City anytime soon.

The Dodgers could ask the city to build them one, but chances are the city would tell them to go kick rocks. By renting one out, teams can — in essence — leave a city with a decrepit old building and bolt for a new city that wants to offer the next Edward Jones Dome-type deal.

And as these cities lose these teams, critics from the new home blame the fans in the old city for losing the team — or the voters for not building them a new home.

Only in sports are the consumers blamed for not buying a terrible product — subsidizing it with taxpayer dollars. Let's take the Rams and Kings. In both places fans were criticized for not buying tickets and, therefore, should lose their teams.

Whether the fans were in St. Louis, Los Angeles or Sacramento — why should they pay good, hard-earned money to watch a god-awful product?

If the Rams or Kings want a full house, give the consumer a reason to buy it. And if they're not willing to invest in building a new home for themselves, why should we?

Before Jeff Fisher arrived in St. Louis in 2012, the Rams won 15 games in five years. Fifteen! And ownership's put out because the taxpayer doesn't want — or have — the $700 million for a new playpen?

Prior to the Rams' move to St. Louis, they only won six games once in the five years before the move. A terrible team with a bad ownership that chose to play its football games in a baseball stadium — and folks wondered why fans stayed away.

As much as fans like a cool new stadium, they like to watch a good product — especially at the prices we see today. The Giants have both.

When teams move, it's not because of a failure of the fans or the community to support them. It's a failure of the business — like it is for any business — to meet the needs of the consumer in that market.

And if the Rams do move back to L.A. (owner Stan Kroenke has bought 60 acres in Inglewood), then the new city should make him privately finance the new place.

Moreover, it would mean St. Louis would have lost two NFL teams since the late 1980s, and neither case (Arizona Cardinals) would be the fault of the fans or the city.

It would be on both owners, who failed to produce a product worth investing in.